I remember a flash of Kirk Douglas playing Spartacus, flashed through my mind, saying the line 'a slave does not fear death, death is the only freedom a slave knows about.'
— universeness

You told me the revolt was all about 'love of freedom'! — Vera Mont

In what way do you think the above quote from the Spartacus movie, would impact the idea that a human slave would yearn to be free and would revolt to gain such, even if death was a likely result?

In a way - but not through or because of their presence. It's really only a few other people: the ones who can invent both a concept of hell and the means of creating some facsimile of it on earth. One of those means is convincing the weak-minded of their own right to lead and decide. — Vera Mont

Which do you value most, your own company/solitude or the company of others? Do you need both? Could you live without being able to experience one or the other?
Yeah, I also see the willingness of some, to blindly follow another, a serious problem. It's in my top 5 threats. Love can cause such behaviour, do you agree?
Other people can certainly bring hell/terror/horror into our lives. Gangsters/Nazi's or even those we love can bring such into our lives, so, is it safer to avoid other people and live a life of solitude as much as possible?

That's a difficult question, what with the qualifier tacked to its tail. — Vera Mont

I agree but for me, it's almost as critical as
1. Who are you?
2. What do you want?
How much of this life I lead, should be about me? and how much of it should be about people other than me?
As a percentage, 50/50? 60/40? 90/10? 10/90, have you thought about such?

Most of us do crave the companionship of like-minded humans, and the affection of friends, family, the love and loyalty of a mate. Of course we're self-centered, but that doesn't exclude mutual help, protection and co-operation; it doesn't preclude compassion, empathy and altruism. We - as all intelligent animals - are capable of containing and balancing a large number of drives and impulses and ideas that may sometimes be in conflict, one with another. — Vera Mont

That all sounds quite reasonable and balanced, so why such a history of tribal/national/international and possibly global war? Why has your more balanced sounding approach not been more successful in the past and can it become so in the future?

I simply believe that we can do better than we ever have in the past!
— universeness

Not at this juncture in history. Maybe someday. — Vera Mont

'Someday,' is the goal that has always been with us, even in the wilds. We have always been working and fighting for 'someday.' Perhaps we have also went to war to fight and die for that 'someday.'
Is part of why we 'war,' to bring 'someday' nearer? The only thing a slave has left to gamble, is their life.
and when the nefarious place people in that position then they show how stupid they can be, because that creates more hardmen/women than any gangster/king/messiah or billionaire can handle.

We each are doing what we believe we need to, and can. (except I'm shirking again. Hell isn't other people; other people - well, them and the scrabble game - are what I seek out as a relief from proofreading hell.) — Vera Mont

But you choose to interact with other people here/online, which I am sure, is hell, sometimes.
I agree that we are each doing what we believe we need to, but we need to keep working really hard, to prevent having to go to war against those whose beliefs we consider so detrimental to us and those we care about. We have to find other ways. Maybe the only solution that will stop us warring with each other, is an even higher level of m.a.d. The only other two possible solutions seem to me, to be, giving control to AGI or becoming one species on one planet, one global civilisation with the concept of individual nations diminishing to become a complete irrelevance.

In what way do you think the above quote from the Spartacus movie, would impact the idea that a human slave would yearn to be free and would revolt to gain such, even if death was a likely result? — universeness

Yearn, sure. The contradiction is in 'love' :

death is the only freedom a slave knows about.' — Vera Mont

How can you love that which you do not know?

Which do you value most, your own company/solitude or the company of others? — universeness

It depends entire on the 'others'. These days, few others are available; not only can I not choose the right company for the right mood, I can't choose at all: they're dead or far away, all but one who knows when I need to be alone - and we both live in constant dread of losing the other. Old age sucks ostrich eggs!

1. Who are you?
2. What do you want? — universeness

Far's I can see, that's only one question.

That all sounds quite reasonable and balanced, so why such a history of tribal/national/international and possibly global war? — universeness

Numbers, territory, resources and leadership. While Native Americans did occasionally clash over territory and did stage the odd raid on one another's goods, by and large they were able to coexist, until the Europeans swarmed over here with an unbridled appetite for everything. This is why I avoid the term 'tribalism' when talking about national identities and aspirations. They're not synonymous.

We have always been working and fighting for 'someday.' — universeness

And some days, some decades and centuries, have been better than others. I recall saying here, not long ago, that we are currently on the down-slope of the progress roller-coaster. The up-slope - 1964-1980 - were pretty good in north America. It lasted somewhat longer in Europe - minus that hicup in the UK, and I think even longer, though it may have started later in Australia.

Is part of why we 'war,' to bring 'someday' nearer? — universeness

No. Social progress takes place in prosperous, peaceful periods, when people are not frightened.

But you choose to interact with other people here/online, which I am sure, is hell, sometimes. — universeness

Not really. You're not real flesh-and-blood people: of any persona on the internet i don't know how much is their true self and how much is invented. I know where the door is on my mouse; I'm never trapped in a room with a bigot, a boor or a bore. I don't take these interactions too seriously: when an exchange becomes absurd, I treat it as comedy.

The only other two possible solutions seem to me, to be, giving control to AGI or becoming one species on one planet, one global civilisation with the concept of individual nations diminishing to become a complete irrelevance. — universeness

Again, that's not two alternatives; that's step 1 and 2 in the same process.
The difficult, the insurmountable word in your proposition is : giving

Yearn, sure. The contradiction is in 'love' : — Vera Mont

I am sure that's a sliding scale from slave to slave. When you reach the point of being willing to gamble your life to achieve it, I think you don't just yearn for freedom you covet it with an intensity I would accept as 'love.'

How can you love that which you do not know? — Vera Mont

No-one has ever returned to them to tell them oblivion/death involves any suffering or awareness.
A master/slave owner is demonstrably unable to command the dead. I would say that would be a state which I would covet/desire/love, as an alternative to my day to day misery/suffering, as a slave.

It depends entire on the 'others'. These days, few others are available; not only can I not choose the right company for the right mood, I can't choose at all: they're dead or far away, all but one who knows when I need to be alone - and we both live in constant dread of losing the other. Old age sucks ostrich eggs! — Vera Mont

I have an elderly neighbour, 78, who lives alone but she is involved in so much community stuff that she is quite busy. She is also able to shut out the world, when she wants to. Neighbours and friends are always checking on her to ensure she is ok and has all she needs. She is always 'chipper,' whenever I meet her in the street and chat. She seems to be having a nice life BUT I know this may only be window dressing, I don't know for sure. My mother at 86 seems content most of the time, but certainly not all of the time.

The up-slope - 1964-1980 - were pretty good in north America. It lasted somewhat longer in Europe - minus that hicup in the UK, and I think even longer, though it may have started later in Australia. — Vera Mont

As long as the 'up-slopes' produce an overall trend of progress for the human race then my optimism is maintainable and I see no global slide, that would prove Mr Pinker's 'Enlightenment Now,' completely unfounded.

Is part of why we 'war,' to bring 'someday' nearer?
— universeness

No. Social progress takes place in prosperous, peaceful periods, when people are not frightened. — Vera Mont

We still had to war to destroy the Nazis, and the fascist Japanese and Italians, there was no alternative at the time imo. 'Someday,' would never happen if we had not.

Not really. You're not real flesh-and-blood people: of any persona on the internet i don't know how much is their true self and how much is invented. I know where the door is on my mouse; I'm never trapped in a room with a bigot, a boor or a bore. I don't take these interactions too seriously: when an exchange becomes absurd, I treat it as comedy. — Vera Mont

Fair point Vera!

Again, that's not two alternatives; that's step 1 and 2 in the same process.
The difficult, the insurmountable word in your proposition is : giving — Vera Mont

Perhaps!

I am sure that's a sliding scale from slave to slave. — universeness

So... Gandhi's "way of truth and love" that invariably triumphs is a wibbly-wobbly, truthey-lovey, slippy-slidy interpretation, like biblical text? OK

As long as the 'up-slopes' produce an overall trend of progress for the human race then my optimism is maintainable and I see no global slide, that would prove Mr Pinker's 'Enlightenment Now,' completely unfounded. — universeness

Well... Let's say 'overall progress for the human race' is also open to interpretation. I certainly wouldn't wish to disturb Mr. Pinker's peace of mind. What I do find alarming is the complacent attitude of optimists toward the express-train load of bad ship coming at them.

She is always 'chipper,' whenever I meet her in the street and chat. — universeness

So am I. I don't go around scowling or sniffling - I just see what I see, know what I know.

So... Gandhi's "way of truth and love" that invariably triumphs is a wiibbly-wobbly, truthy-lovey, sliding interpretation, like biblical text. OK — Vera Mont

Yes, because fear can defeat truth and love, inside the mind of an individual.
Abject slavery is preferred by many, to the threat of death, especially if the death threat is particularly gruesome. If comply or die, is the choice you have then I don't blame anyone for choosing either option.
I personally agree with the response to brawn of, "I will say 'no I wont' one more time than a torturer can say 'yes you will,' " but I have never been fully tested in that way. I do think that anyone can break.

You never responded to:

How much of this life I lead, should be about me? and how much of it should be about people other than me?
As a percentage, 50/50? 60/40? 90/10? 10/90, have you thought about such? — universeness

any particular reason why not?

Well... Let's say we have slightly different points of view. And I certainly wouldn't wish to disturb Mr. Pinker's peace of mind. — Vera Mont

I doubt he has such a 'peace of mind,' but I also think he could defend his position very well, if you tried.

What I do find alarming is the complacent attitude of optimists toward the express-train load of bad ship coming at them. — Vera Mont

(I assume you meant 'shit,' rather than 'ship')
:lol: I appreciate the point, but perhaps it's because we think we can get out of the way in time, or we can stop the train from doing the amount of damage pessimists are convinced it will do, or sure, we are about to be covered from head to toe in all sorts of caustic, destructive shit, BUT the fight will go on, as long as some optimists survive the train of shit assaults you envision.

No, I don't recall saying that. I said my own respect and desire for facts does not make me fascist.
Bureaucratic organizations of some kind are unavoidable in dealing with the complex needs and interactions of a large, diverse population, especially in times of rapidly developing technological and economic change. I have no objection to a robust, competent civil service - in fact, I believe they are far more stable than elected government administrations, and can do more - allowed to operate according to their mandate - to keep politicians honest than politicians ever do one another. — Vera Mont

Communism, socialism, and laissez-faire capitalism are eccomic systems, not politic opposites.
The opposite of democracy is autocracy and you are speaking in favor of autocracy. Opposition to autocracy includes keeping elected people honest and focused on the well fair of all, versus an oligarchy- rule by a handful of powerful people who are ruling to feather their own nest.

Autocracy is efficient. Democracy is not!

Humans have had wars throughout their existence; as civilizations grew bigger and more powerful, the wars grew bigger, more deadly and more frequent. They were not caused by bureaucracy or technology; they did not cause either of those things; they have always co-existed within civilization. Wars have been waged with rocks, thrown sticks, fire and long sharp knives, projectile balls and pointy things, things that go bang and things that go thud, things that poison people and sever limb from limb.
Three events changed the attitude the of US conservatives in the wake of WWII: they came out of it the overall winner, the country that scored most points and suffered least loss; they developed the atomic bomb which gave their hawks a sense of invincibility, and the Russian 'communist' state rose up as a major contender for world domination, which threw those same hawks into a state of demented paranoia.

I need to begin by saying I strongly disagree with your belief that there is no difference between the bureaucratic structure of the past and today's Military-Industrial Complex. There is no way the bureaucratic order of the past could maintain the complex governments we have today.

I think we need to distinguish the difference between haphazard wars and a Military Industrial Complex.
Sparta lived for war and this led to the inability to reproduce enough citizens to defend Sparta and Sparta died. We might thrill at learning of Sparta's military achievements, but it is Athens that originated Western civilization, not Sparta. Please give that a moment of thought.

The US was the Athens of the modern world with education modeled after Athens education. Germany was the Sparta of the modern world. Thanks to the Prussians Germany was a military-industrial complex and gave us modern warfare that involves every aspect of a nation, unlike the wars of old. The US adopted this bureaucratic order and the education that goes with it. The US is now the Military-Industrial Complex it defended its democracy against.

There is a difference between haphazard wars and being a Military-Industrial Complex. A very important difference is cultural and thinking military order and control is better than a democracy with liberty and justice for all manifested by the citizens and rule by rule, not authority over the people. The US could throw all its weapons into the oceans and it would still be a Military-Industrial Complex because that is what it is bureaucratically and education for technology is about maintaining this military order.

They're both enormous problems. I don't think they're fascist -- I don't think they any longer have a coherent 'ism' or credo - that started unravelling with Nixon and his unholy alliance with the the South - or any ideology beyond grasping at power by any and all means. They - and their loyal yes-men in the congress and senate absolutely, point-blank renounce facts. They spurn the constitution, debase every agency of legitimate governance, trample on civil rights and education and deny the electorate a means of expression. They will make civil war... Well, not a new one: The American Civil War Part II.

Perhaps if I could explain the difference between past bureaucratic order and the Military-Industial Complex, you agree what we have is fascism.

Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies, which support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.
https://world101.cfr.org/historical-context/world-war/what-fascism#:~:text=What%20does%20fascism%20mean%3F,leader%20over%20the%20individual%20citizen.

The model of fascist government comes out of the Prussian military order. A hand of generals establishes the policy and this includes defining everything that needs to be done to achieve this goal and exactly what each person will do to achieve that goal. Now no one needs to think because obeying orders is preferred over independent thinking.

The national heroes that were the foundation of American culture, were independent thinkers. Washington, Franklin, and Lincoln were independent thinkers as were captains of ships. We destroyed our national heroes. We ended education for independent thinking and focused on "group think" because "group think" is best for advancing technology. We ended education for good moral judgment and left moral training to the Chruch, and now have an amoral society that we try to control with laws and authority over the people, who no longer understand what is required for good moral judgment.

I am struggling so hard for the right words. Please understand the bureaucratic order was always supported by public education and the present is nothing like the past. We now have military order, not family order. We once prepared everyone for civic and industrial leadership. Now all are prepared to follow and obey. Trump is our hero because he does not follow and obey. Trump is our Hitler because we have the bureaucratic order and education of our fascist enemy. You seem to favor this order over the democratic order and I think most people agree with you.

Sparta won the war with Athens. The modern Athens won the war with the modern Sparta. Now we are what defended our democracy against and most people believe this is a good thing but now that it is their hands, they think God favors them, and this is not fascism. But it is fascism.

As a 20+ I remember being in a Glasgow pub with my father.
He was not a 'hardman' himself, but he knew a few.
There was a well known Glasgow gangster in the pub, holding court with other gangsters, when I overheard him say 'I'll tell yous what a hardman is, it's just some f***er with f*** all left to lose.'
I remember a flash of Kirk Douglas playing Spartacus, flashed through my mind, saying the line 'a slave does not fear death, death is the only freedom a slave knows about.'
Over time I have thought a lot about that.
What causes humans to fight and kill each other rather than work with each other in common cause?
I know each of you could give me a long list of reasons.
I think this most important of issues has yet to be fully answered.
Is 'hell' really 'other people?'
Is it true that we love and need company but we also need solipsism to be true, but not always.
You are both intelligent people. Can intelligent people make a global human civilisation that works, or is the 'hell is other people,' concept just too strong in humans?
I simply believe that we can do better than we ever have in the past!
I don't really care how we achieve it. I have already offered my own personal top 5 horrors we need to make benign. We have spent too long in tribes, city states, nations, allies and axis, etc, at war, recovering from war and preparing for the next war. We must find ways to do better. We can talk about the past and the reasons why we are where we are now, forever.
Can we not focus on how we think we can make a better world? — universeness

I love what you said and especially Spartacus's quote. As old age overtakes my youth, I am responding from a different perspective as I say, I can understand death as the only freedom.

I love that your question screams at me why I keep writing about the US being what it defended its democracy against. We did not have maintain war time contracts and a large standing army, nor invest in weapons that can do more damage is a few hours than we could have done months of war. As Rome came to depend on its military force leading to its military leaders taking control of Rome, so it is for the Military-Industrial Complex of WWII Germany and the US today. What the US is today, is not what it was before WWII.

Not until Eisenhower and the Korean War did the US become the Military-Industrial Complex we are today and this makes it much more like that we will engage in war than was so before WWII. It took a year to mobilize for the WWI and WWII. Today we can fully be engaged in war within hours and do more damage than we could do in several months. Like Rome it is no longer the people who are in control but the Beast that feeds off us.

I had hoped the Internet and citizens around the world would take this power away from their governments, and with the power of the people they would manifest world peace. I still hold onto this hope although I don't see this happening yet. Democracy leads to peace, not religion, and not a Military-industrial complex. We need to return to family order and end this military order. The people of the world need to unite against the Beasts that feed off of us.

I had hoped the Internet and citizens around the world would take this power away from their governments, and with the power of the people they would manifest world peace. I still hold onto this hope although I don't see this happening yet. Democracy leads to peace, not religion, and not a Military-industrial complex. We need to return to family order and end this military order. The people of the world need to unite against the Beasts that feed off of us. — Athena

I broadly agree with the content of your statement above, but the term 'family order' can be problematic in the variations it can manifest.
In my world, I would not allow a single tier of government to have full control over the military or the police. I would have a second, as powerful, elected tier of stakeholder representatives. Citizens, who represented all major worker groups, age and gender based reps also, etc. This citizens house, would have to agree to any war declaration or invasion of another nation, that the government of the day proposed.
The government would have full control over all forces in the case of an outside attack on the nation.
New ways to wield political authority must be found. I would also get rid of party politics.
We must vote for people not political parties.

How much of this life I lead, should be about me? and how much of it should be about people other than me?
As a percentage, 50/50? 60/40? 90/10? 10/90, have you thought about such? — universeness

The reason I didn't answer it:
No, I can't say I've counted the percentages of my life, or my life in percentages. I never even considered life to be about something - it's just a process that unfolds as it does, from a biological entity as it is and functions, in a world that operates as it does in a period of time that lasts as long as it does. I don't live for things or people; I live because i was born and have so far found the experience of existence more positive than negative. I think and feel, desire, aspire, act and respond in certain ways, according to my nature and condition. While that process does include contracts, rivalries, entanglements, debts, obligations, conflicts, gifts and charities, none of those are 'about other people'; they merely situations that involve other people, who are also living their own independent lives. (This is why "Who are you?" and "What do you want?" are really one question.)

(I assume you meant 'shit,' rather than 'ship') — universeness

Proofreading hell strikes back. Of course, now I can't go back to fix it; must wear that bit of eggyolk.

I appreciate the point, but perhaps it's because we think we can get out of the way in time, or we can stop the train from doing the amount of damage pessimists are convinced it will do, — universeness

Yes, that's optimism. Good luck!

Communism, socialism, and laissez-faire capitalism are eccomic systems, not politic opposites. — Athena

So what? That doesn't make any difference to their similar bureaucratic support structure.

you are speaking in favor of autocracy. — Athena

No, I'm describing governance in any form.

There is no way the bureaucratic order of the past could maintain the complex governments we have today. — Athena

Same functions. More of them.

We might thrill at learning of Sparta's military achievements, but it is Athens that originated Western civilization, not Sparta. Please give that a moment of thought. — Athena

TBH, I'm a bit fed up with both their defunct houses. And the Prussians and the Founding slave-trade- panders. And the past or current state of the American brand of democracy. I don't see any of them through your binoculars.

The bigger and more immediate problem is: I don't see any of them relevant to the present situation.

No, I can't say I've counted the percentages of my life, or my life in percentages. I never even considered life to be about something - it's just a process that unfolds as it does, from a biological entity as it is and functions, in a world that operates as it does in a period of time that lasts as long as it does. I don't live for things or people; I live because i was born and have so far found the experience of existence more positive than negative. I think and feel, desire, aspire, act and respond in certain ways, according to my nature and condition. While that process does include contracts, rivalries, entanglements, debts, obligations, conflicts, gifts and charities, none of those are 'about other people'; they merely situations that involve other people, who are also living their own independent lives. (This is why "Who are you?" and "What do you want?" are really one question.) — Vera Mont

The overall imagery I get from what you typed above gives me too much of an impression that you have been a bystander in your own life. I am sure that is not the case. If I insist that you created the main purpose and meaning and legacy of your life by how you chose to manipulate the variables you had to work with. Why does that not compel you to accept that life is indeed 'about something?'

I appreciate the point, but perhaps it's because we think we can get out of the way in time, or we can stop the train from doing the amount of damage pessimists are convinced it will do,
— universeness

Yes, that's optimism. Good luck! — Vera Mont

Thanks for your statement that you hope that fortune favours my optimism, that's quite optimistic of you. :wink:

The overall imagery I get from what you typed above gives me too much of an impression that you have been a bystander in your own life. — universeness

I was doing - working, helping, arguing, loving, protesting, partying, parenting, growing, making and repairing things, teaching, volunteering, writing - not calculating. I was far too busy most of the time to figure percentages.

If I insist that you created the main purpose and meaning and legacy of your life by how you chose to manipulate the variables you had to work with. — universeness

I don't believe lives or Life have a purpose. We creatures with brains respond to the environment and set short and long term goals in order and initiate purposeful activity to achieve specific ends for specific reasons. As for a 'legacy', that's up to a future I will not occupy. I don't expect to leave much of a ripple. In fact, come to think of it, several other people's last faint ripples will die with me, because I'm the last to remember their stories.

Why does that not compel you to accept that life is indeed 'about something?' — universeness

Being compelled is not a condition I readily accept from anyone. You asked what percent of my life was "about other people". I couldn't place that 'about' on anyone, because I don't think of other people as objects to encompass. If the story or stories of my life has/have been about something, I can't see it from here.

that's quite optimistic of you. — universeness

Merely polite. I'm 97% sure you'll fail.

I was doing - working, helping, arguing, loving, protesting, partying, parenting, growing, making and repairing things, teaching, volunteering, writing - not calculating. — Vera Mont

I also, was, and still am, 'doing' and I also regularly review what I did, why I did it, who I was, who and what I have become and what I now want. So, I also choose to calculate

I don't believe lives or Life have a purpose. — Vera Mont

Do you know of anything other than 'life' for creating meaning, purpose and legacy?
A beaver may build a dam that lasts hundreds of years and changes the local environment for so many other species in a way that helps them thrive. Is that not an example of legacy?
Might someone read one of your books, a hundred years from now, and be inspired to start a revolution from their bed?

Being compelled is not a condition I readily accept from anyone. Besides, you've just pulled one of those shifts forum posters so often do. You asked what percent of my life was "about other people" and you've now changed it to "about something". — Vera Mont

'Other people' can surely exemplify 'something.'

Merely polite. I'm 97% sure you'll fail. — Vera Mont

I have already succeeded in many ways, so it depends what you mean.
I have failed so far, to create the human civilisation I have described to you, however,
a teacher of 30+ years, influences many lives in many ways. Some in very significant ways indeed.
Is there a teacher that had a significant affect on your life?
Carl Sagan had the biggest affect on mine, and one or two teachers, I can still name and remember what they did for me and how they altered my mindset and my goals in life.

Do you know of anything other than 'life' for creating meaning, purpose and legacy? — universeness

You mean making *ship* up? No. How's that relevant? Like "Something or someone has to create meaning, and if there's no god and the universe isn't conscious, life has to do it" ? No, I don't believe that. I believe 'purpose' is how living entities experience their directed actions - and that the actions are directed at procuring what the entity needs or desires at any given time. I don't believe in some overarching Purpose or Meaning any more than I believe in Truth or Creation.
(got to clean that sticky p key!)

As for 'legacy', that's something left behind when you're too dead to care. If you've built a dam or a house or some ugly big tomb, whoever is alive after you will be aware of it and maybe even know your name. (I understand Trump's have already been taken off most of the buildings he had other, unnamed people build and he just stuck his name on, as have Lenin's off the ones other, unnamed people stuck it on after he was gone.)
People are not that eager to read my books now, when they're actually relevant - no, they're not! Just that last one is; soon to be two, if I ever finish proofreading and formatting the damn sequel). If they read it after I'm gone, they're certainly welcome, but it won't do me any good.

I have already succeeded in many ways, so it depends what you mean. — universeness

If your students actually do derail that fast-approaching ship-train, that's quite an accomplishment!
All mine ever learned was histology, pottery and colloquial English - useful enough in the short term, but hardly amounts to a legacy.

Nobody wants what’s coming, so nobody wants to see what’s coming.

That article is very much worth reading. Athena could maybe get some insight, too.
Glance to the left while you're on that page.
In case you think an ocean is buffer enough

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reopened those wounds. The Russo-Ukrainian war is becoming chronic and the spectre of a world war can be glimpsed on the horizon: the west against Russia, China and other allies. The Nobel Peace Prize recognition awarded to the European Union in 2012, for having transformed a continent of war into a continent of peace, seems unjustified today.https://www.socialeurope.eu/the-new-european-civil-war

Britain’s existential threat is not simply the result of poor governance—an undeniable reality—but of something much deeper: the manifestation of something close to a spiritual crisis.https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/01/will-britain-survive/621095/

I broadly agree with the content of your statement above, but the term 'family order' can be problematic in the variations it can manifest.
In my world, I would not allow a single tier of government to have full control over the military or the police. I would have a second, as powerful, elected tier of stakeholder representatives. Citizens, who represented all major worker groups, age and gender based reps also, etc. This citizens house, would have to agree to any war declaration or invasion of another nation, that the government of the day proposed.
The government would have full control over all forces in the case of an outside attack on the nation.
New ways to wield political authority must be found. I would also get rid of party politics.
We must vote for people not political parties. — universeness

Once again we have a lot of agreement. One way a citizen can have a say in local policy is to join a committee. Such committee work gave me more power to affect decisions than anything else I have done, including speaking at public hearings. What we have works pretty well but many people are unaware of all the points of influencing policy.

It takes a lot of dedication if a person is serious about supporting a law of changing the organization of a bureaucratic department. This can involve doing things to attract reporters and make the public aware of the need for change. Joining together with like-minded and having a convention in a large hotel. Going in groups to speak with representatives, writing letters, and bringing in already established organizations. All this takes a lot of time, energy, and money and because people's ego's get in the way, there needs to be a strong leader to get everyone working together instead of against each other. I have found most people never attend public hearings or write letters and really don't know what to do except vote when voting time comes. This is generally not someone with children, nor someone so old the energy just isn't there.

High schools should have a class on government organization and how to participate in government and we should advance public speaking as much we pay attention to foot ball! :rage: Schools budget time and effort for ball games, but not public speaking and civics. Not the classes that would empower the young. And now my dear, I am back to the cultural problem. I hope you see it.

So what? That doesn't make any difference to their similar bureaucratic support structure. — Vera Mont

Oh, my dear. You made me aware of the possible value of a high school class that is about the different bureaucratic organizations and what makes each governing different. Thank you I need to work on that. Isn't it crazy we commit acts of war on people knowing nothing about how they are organized or if a problem can be resolved in another way besides war? We do commit economic warfare. That began when the Church was struggling to control everyone and what each person thought, and disemboweling or burning those who held different ideas.

Hope to get back to you. got to run.

You made me aware of the possible value of a high school class that is about the different bureaucratic organizations and what makes each governing different. — Athena

Sure, why not include it in the improved, far more robust Civics curriculum?
Make sure you include Yes Minister as assigned homework.
But can you establish that as a core subject in Florida et al?
When d'you think it will happen anywhere?

No, I'm describing governance in any form. — Vera Mont

At breakfast this morning the gentleman I sat next to gave me explanations of the different forms of government and they are very different. Socialism is kind of a hybrid between Laize Faire capitalism and communism. A communist country can have a lot of voting but the citizens still have little power because what they vote on is not the important decisions. The communist form of government owns and controls all resources.

In the US the government owns and controls very little. So we have problems that can't be solved. For example, the cost of housing is so high a private party can not afford to build and then sell or rent housing to low-income people at a price the people can afford. Only the government has the resources for building truly affordable housing but our capitalist system prevents that from happening. We have this problem because our reality has changed and people don't like change, so they resist change. No one is going to go west and homestead, or buy cheap land, because it is not available.

In one hundred years we have gone from an empty frontier to cities having no available land from industries and housing, forcing the cities to use the land that does become available for apartments. Gone are the days of building neighborhoods filled with three-bedroom homes with large front and back yards. Maybe one block will become available by tearing down the old buildings, so the multi-story apartment can be built. But it can not be built cheaply enough to be affordable to low-income people. Our reality has changed but not our mindset.

How do you think we should manage our changed reality?

Another change is people are living twice as long and the population of old people is huge and growing! What happens to them when they can no longer care for themselves? Should this be a social concern or strictly a private concern?

About the family order. What do you think family is about? I have a 1941 Family Law book that details who is responsible for whom and what the penalties are for people who do not fulfill their family duty. Back in the day, no one got government help. It just was not available. We got Social Security during the Depression so old people could retire and open up a job for the young. There was no food, medical, or housing assistance. Germany had a national retirement plan, worker's compensation, and a national medical plan long before the US. As I said, these government programs were impossible before we adopted the German model of bureaucracy. In the US the government was too weak and incapable of providing people assistance. What do think family order has to do with such matters?

By the way, I think you are doing an amazing job of managing these arguments for a young person. In another 20 years of arguing you will be awesome.

At breakfast this morning the gentleman I sat next to gave me explanations of the different forms of government and they are very different. — Athena

Did he dissect their structures of civil service? Those are very similar: judicial, defence, foreign affairs, financial/commercial, infrastructure, social service, oversight.

The communist form of government owns and controls all resources. — Athena

That's how so-called communist states work in practice; that does not conform to theory any more than American style democracy conforms to the ideal of democracy or laissez-faire economics is actually about leaving each other do what do as they please. Words are easy; practice is difficult.

In the US the government owns and controls very little. — Athena

time for some serious homework!

In one hundred years we have gone from an empty frontier — Athena

... owned, occupied, hunted and revered by about 200 nations you choose not to acknowledge....

to cities having no available land from industries and housing, forcing the cities to use the land that does become available for apartments. — Athena

Yeeesss
but there are alternative distributions of land, property, usage....

We have this problem because our reality has changed and people don't like change, so they resist change — Athena

That's not it. I think you need a different perspective on the problem.

How do you think we should manage our changed reality? — Athena

lots of ways, and I'll give you a sample after I feed the OG and the cats and rewatched the final episode of Season 2 of the GBBS.

TBC

How do you think we should manage our changed reality? — Athena

https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/fresh-from-the-city-the-rise-of-urban-farming/

https://gardeningheavn.com/vertical-hydroponics/

https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-cultivated-meat/

https://www.deassociation.ca/newsfeed/top-8-decentralised-energy-trends-for-2022

https://www.ontario.ca/page/electricity-generation-using-small-wind-turbines-home-or-farm-use

https://www.hydro.org/policy/technology/small-hydro/

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tidal-energy/

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/planning-home-solar-electric-system

https://earthshipbiotecture.com/

https://www.ic.org/directory/communes/

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28241/chapter-abstract/213354161?redirectedFrom=fulltext

and a total overhaul of governance

Another change is people are living twice as long and the population of old people is huge and growing! What happens to them when they can no longer care for themselves? Should this be a social concern or strictly a private concern? — Athena

It's been a social concern for a while now. Seemed like a good idea, in the capitalist system, to use great big whacks of social security and pension contribution for investment in private enterprises. Too bad so many of those overreached and went pear-shaped and lost our money! Just like the banks with the mortgage payments on family farms, just like last time, eh? They don't learn, but they always sail away on their yachts, unscathed by the messes they make.

One thing that happens to the old people is that the conservatives won't let them die with dignity at a time of their own choosing, with medical assistance (apparently, God doesn't like people dying with dignity; He prefers to humiliate them with soiled bedclothes and abusive attendants) ; they'll force them with increased rents and food prices to die begging and freezing on the streets while the police try to keep them moving out from wherever they camp. Unless the riots burn them out first. No soylent green for us!

About the family order. What do you think family is about? — Athena

Home is the place where, when you have to go there, They have to take you in.’ https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44261/the-death-of-the-hired-man

We had two narrative poems to study in Gr 13: Death of a Hired Man and In a Tuscan Villa They both made an impression - plus, I had a massive crush on my English teacher. Dark curls, pink cheeks, blue eyes; spent a couple of summer vacations desegregating Alabama, which was none of his business as a Canadian, but I admired it....

Family isn't 'about' something, any more than life is. Family is part of life, of the organization of social animals. Among modern humans, it can be the stuff of nightmares - or a warm support-structure. I guess in complex civilizations, it's more often nightmarish than in primitive ones because everything is so much more complicated and stressful. But mostly because the men are abused and emotionally crippled by the system, so they turn around and abuse whoever can't fight back.

As I said, these government programs were impossible before we adopted the German model of bureaucracy. — Athena

Of course they were possible! The elite liked their feudal lordship and wouldn't let go until the depression, the union movement and the wars forced them to. The government wasn't weak; it had a capitalist mind-set, was composed of the financial elite.

“The business of America is business!”
This often repeated phrase was reported to be first said by President Calvin Coolidge, in a January 1925 speech to newspaper editors. Coolidge or “Silent Cal” was president during a rapid expansion of the US economy known as the “Roaring Twenties,” just before the Great Depression and the hardship and suffering associated with our economy’s greatest collapse.

Once they lost their footing out on that cliff, the government suddenly got strong enough to get things done.

Roosevelt’s New Deal fundamentally and permanently changed the U.S. federal government by expanding its size and scope—especially its role in the economy.

By the way, I think you are doing an amazing job of managing these arguments for a young person. In another 20 years of arguing you will be awesome. — Athena

Why, thank you! In 20 years I shall be 96 years and three weeks old. I just hope my arthritis doesn't get too much worse. But I guess my computer will work on thought-control, or I'll have a support robot....

In the US the government owns and controls very little.
— Athena
time for some serious homework! — Vera Mont

Is that a hint? It is not a factual statement that contributes to the discussion.

... owned, occupied, hunted and revered by about 200 nations you choose not to acknowledge.... — Vera Mont

What are you talking about? What countries do I fail to acknowledge and what should that acknowledgment be? What do those countries have to do with the very rapid change of a wilderness to overpopulated cities and seriously depleted resources?

but there are alternative distributions of land, property, usage.... — Vera Mont

Please give examples of those alternatives.

That's not it. I think you need a different perspective on the problem. — Vera Mont

Okay and where does the different perspective come from? History books? Life experience? Can you be more clear about what you are talking about?

Family isn't 'about' something, any more than life is. Family is part of life, of the organization of social animals. Among modern humans, it can be the stuff of nightmares - or a warm support-structure. I guess in complex civilizations, it's more often nightmarish than in primitive ones because everything is so much more complicated and stressful. But mostly because the men are abused and emotionally crippled by the system, so they turn around and abuse whoever can't fight back. — Vera Mont

This is one of the main reasons I keep harping about Deming's democratic model for industry. In the US, our industry is modeled after England's autocratic industry, and we still use the word "landlord". The history of landlords is very ugly and so the history of the industrialization of England very ugly! Now this is about culture. I think we need to know our history to be sane about our reality.

The US democracy came with a lot of baggage and the first thing that had to be done was spread over a wilderness an establish a civilization. Just a child can not be a grownup from the day of birth, neither can a civilization be fully developed in the beginning. Being totally negative about our history is not helpful. Today we are a lot closer to being able to achieve our human potential than we were two hundred years ago. But now we need to analyze that history and our ideas of democracy and what the best society looks like and then plan how to make that transition. Replacing the autocratic model of industry with Deming's model and returning education to for democracy, might resolve many problems, including having happier and healthier families.

Why, thank you! In 20 years I shall be 96 years and three weeks old. I just hope my arthritis doesn't get too much worse. But I guess my computer will work on thought control, or I'll have a support robot... — Vera Mont

So for how long have you engaged with others and how have you prepared to be a knowledgeable person? I think my ability has improved greatly in the last ten years thanks to the internet. And I love the college lectures provided by the Great Courses. For me, it is all like being in college but easier because I can do it at my time and at home. The forums are like gathering with other students to have a better understanding of what we want to learn and how we understand reality.

In one hundred years we have gone from an empty frontier to cities having no available land from industries and housing, forcing the cities to use the land that does become available for apartments. — Athena

What countries do I fail to acknowledge and what should that acknowledgment be? — Athena

I didn't say countries; I said nations. That frontier had to be emptied - by any means - before they could be totally despoiled by European settlers. But I admit to exaggeration: it's only two dozen.
Iroquois Cherokee Choctaw Mohawk people Navajo Shawnee Seneca Oneida Apache Cayuga
Chickasaw Cree Comanche Onondaga CheyenneTuscarora Lakota Abenaki Sioux
Blackfoot Confederacy Hopi Potawatomi Shoshone Lumbee
...and let's not forget Mexico

The Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848 marked the first U.S. armed conflict chiefly fought on foreign soil. It pitted a politically divided and militarily unprepared Mexico against the expansionist-minded administration of U.S. President James K. Polk, who believed the United States had a “Manifest Destiny” to spread across the continent to the Pacific Ocean.

and France

The Louisiana Purchase encompassed 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States purchased from France in 1803 for $15 million.

which was necessary because Napoleon's warring immersed France even deeper into debt... which came about partly as a result of the US refusing to pay off its debt to France from the war of independence, saying it had been borrowed from the monarchy, not the post-revolutionary government, but the debt France had incurred in helping the US gain independence was itself a major contributary factor in the French Revolution... They eventually resolved the financial mess, but not before almost going to war against the country that had been their staunchest ally ten years before. Oh, what a tangled web, indeed!

Please give examples of those alternatives. — Athena

Coulda sworn I gave you a whole page of links a couple of posts ago.

Can you be more clear about what you are talking about? — Athena

And I don't think I've been unclear. The Disunited States of America has never been the country it likes to sing about; it has never been democratic, just, free, or peaceful. It cannot be any of those things now. The electoral system is not 'broken'; it was badly designed to begin with. While injecting a dose of truth into the school curriculum would certainly be useful, that's simply not possible under states rights, when bigots in power can strike down human rights and freedom of speech arbitrarily. I'm talking about the current political reality as it is, not as we wish it were.

I think we need to know our history to be sane about our reality. — Athena

Yes. That is what I'm talking about. Not honest little Georgie Washington or even honester Abe Lincoln, whom I have quoted earlier on the subject of liberating slaves.

In their [Douglas] fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.

The US democracy came with a lot of baggage and the first thing that had to be done was spread over a wilderness an establish a civilization. — Athena

Had to be done? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres_in_North_America

And now, it's heading into a civil war that never really ended, that was never resolved, nor can it be, given the entrenched emotinalism of American culture.

But now we need to analyze that history and our ideas of democracy and what the best society looks like and then plan how to make that transition. Replacing the autocratic model of industry with Deming's model and returning education to for democracy, might resolve many problems, including having happier and healthier families. — Athena

Sure. Do that.

So for how long have you engaged with others and how have you prepared to be a knowledgeable person? — Athena

School, books, debates, protests, write-in campaigns, political campaigns, more books, work, friends, news magazines, television (not only documentaries, thought both PBS and BBC are excellent sources... and let's not even mention Michael Moore) but also culture-watching and trend-spotting in popular entertainment. Oddly enough tv commercials are a rich source of cultural and social perception. The internet came along late in my life. I was on a readers' forum for several years, dropped out and looked back in from time to time, including soon after 9/11. The general mood was best expressed by one poster: with his anguished, impotent tiny fist-waving " B A S T A R D S !!!!"... and not the least glimmer of a clue what events precipitated that one.

Had to be done? Really? — Vera Mont

I wish you would join a philosophy group I am in, so we can talk face-to-face. I think the eye ball to eye contact would improve understanding.

About the US spreading from coast to coast. First off I wish the Native Americans had been able to hold their own ground, and that they had retained the governing power. Imagine if the Native Americans had the ruling power and the Europeans had to drop their baggage instead of repeating here the destructive ways of the countries they came from. My thoughts on this go with my strong desire for the US to have psychoanalysis. We need to explore that old baggage and the alternatives.

When I said the people of the US had to establish their civilization where there was wilderness, I did not mean this was a God-given mandate. I meant before they could do anything else, they had to turn the wilderness into the civilization we have today. Now that work is done, we can move on to rethinking everything and making necessary changes. Like take another look at the Native Americans and pick up some of their better ideas, like taking care of the environment is important! Their federation has benefits over European kingdoms. Like if you consider I may be on the same side of the arguments as you are, you may interpret what I am saying as I mean what I am saying, instead of imagining I oppose what you think.

Damn, excuse my pagan expression, but the timer says I am out of time and I must run. What a wonderful discussion we are having. I hate to leave.

About the US spreading from coast to coast. First off I wish the Native Americans had been able to hold their own ground, and that they had retained the governing power. — Athena

Well, then the conquest, the colonizing, the land-grabs, the land grants, the settlement, that whole big 'civilizing the wilderness' process couldn't have happened, could it? Remember, the natives were pushed off the east coast first, then on from the center and westward, always killing more, to make room for the English and Spanish and French people. There would be no USA or Canada or Mexico, or those odious Latin American dictatorships.

We need to explore that old baggage and the alternatives. — Athena

Yes. But who's both able and willing to do that? Who doesn't bring their own uniquely American 'baggage' to the task? IOW, Who's "we"? This is the question I keep coming back to. I don't think the US has any coherent collective; just lots of partisan, more or less emotional, more or less entrenched factions. And even if you found a qualified body of adjudicators, how would their findings 1. be made known to Americans 2. Be received by Americans 3. understood by Americans and 4. accepted by Americans? Can you look around at your fellow citizens and answer those questions?
I can't. Not about Canada and not about any modern federation. Even the organic European nations, like Denmark, have lost their monoethnicity and divided on key issues.

I hate to leave. — Athena

That's okay, I have things to do, too. We finally liberated that kitten from behind my bed and I have to clean the room and move the furniture back.

FYI: trailer release for new B5 animated movie ...
https://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2023/06/babylon-5-animated-movie-gets-trailer.html?m=1

Thanks for the info. I am grateful for some new B5 crumbs, but a cartoon!!!!! :groan: (I will of course buy it on DVD, nonetheless :sweat: )
A time travel storyline is also quite a lazy way to go imo, and my least fav storyline of any sci-fi series.
I was never a fan of series like 'Time Tunnel' or 'Quantum Leap.' I also never enjoyed any of the time travel Star Trek episodes, or any of the alt universe episodes.
A full reboot of the series along with TechnoMage and Psy Core spin offs remains my demand!!!

A time travel storyline is also quite a lazy way to go imo, and my least fav storyline of any sci-fi series. — universeness

How come it's always 20th century Earth? All the same, I did like those episodes.